22yr Police Veteran Tells Congress “I Will Not Comply.”

The circumstances surrounding the letter from Birmingham jail letter may be the better analogy. I have ample reservations about civil disobedience, but the basis set forth in the Birmingham letter is that there is a difference between law and justice and that some legislation is so contrary to natural law that it lacks essential characteristics of law and one consequently can't justly obey it.

I thought an "I will not comply" statement at first seems rhetorically a bit meek. However, this was not part of a prepared statement, but was a response to some of the matters raised by the committee and other witnesses. According to Muller, one of the other witnesses, a police chief, urged a ban of firearms possession, not just semi-automatic rifles.
 
Brave, but people that don’t comply with gun laws end up in bad situations:
Prison
Fines
Probation
Loss of rights
Loss of employment
Possibly injured or killed by a government worker.

The public won’t be sympathetic to any right-wing activism
 
The public won’t be sympathetic to any right-wing activism
Click to expand...

The PRESS won't be sympathetic to any right wing activism.

The public might be, but that story won't be told, if the press has any control over the telling.

And despite the fact that advocates on both sides of the gun control issue are either right or left wing, it is not, and should not be made into a right/left issue.

The Anti's are trying hard to make it that way, we should not help them.
 
RR said:
The public won’t be sympathetic to any right-wing activism
Click to expand...

44AMP said:
The PRESS won't be sympathetic to any right wing activism.
Click to expand...

While this is now a partisan issue, I don’t see the specific firearm possession issue (as distinct from the issue of whether the federal government should have limited powers generally) as an inherently ideological one. That doesn’t mean that some journalists will not distort events to fit their own ideological lens, just that the possession issue itself will have an effect on people across the ideological spectrum.

You will sometimes see people try to describe first and fourth amendment rights in ideological terms too, but that isn’t really how these things play out in practice. How does the 1st Am. align ideologically? It may depend on whether you’re actually discussing flagburning, hate speech, ACA compliance or campaign finance “reform”.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see the specific firearm possession issue (as distinct from the issue of whether the federal government should have limited powers generally) as an inherently ideological one.
Click to expand...
I've never heard anyone on side of the fence say 'our opposition should not have the right to keep/bear arms! only our side should!'

But that's because we believe that the Constitution applies to ALL citizens of this country.

As for the 1st Amendment, there again, I have never heard anyone on our side of the fence say 'only we should be able to say whatever we want or worship how we want!'

Its the left that does not believe in free speech or freedom of religion or the 2nd Amendment.
 
Anyone can ignore the law, as long as they are willing to face the consequences. But talk is cheap saying it and doing it are two different things.
 
It’s getting increasingly difficult to divorce civil rights from being a left/right issue. Gun rights and free speech seem to be the points of contention now.

Problem that aggravates the issue is one side in particular is continually redefining what the exceptions to our civil rights are.
 
spacemanspiff said:
I've never heard anyone on side of the fence say 'our opposition should not have the right to keep/bear arms! only our side should!'
Click to expand...

That's not how ideological alignment on a civil right would work. The mechanism would be I applaud defense of the right for things I like (ideologically) and decry application of the right for things I don't like (ideologically).

spacemanspiff said:
But that's because we believe that the Constitution applies to ALL citizens of this country.
Click to expand...

Should convicted felons be able to vote and hold arms?

spacemanspiff said:
As for the 1st Amendment, there again, I have never heard anyone on our side of the fence say 'only we should be able to say whatever we want or worship how we want!'
Click to expand...

My guess would be that lots of repub voters (though maybe not so many office holders) don't like flag desecration or Westborough Baptist service funeral protests protected by the 1st Am.

If you've ever heard someone in a generally conservative milieu talk about criminals going free on "technicalities", you may have witnessed someone undervaluing civil liberties.

I do see an ideological alignment in the general principle of limited federal government, but a lot of that has to do with the almost century long effort of those on the left who see limits on federal power as an obstacle to their project du jour.

I don’t see the specific firearm possession issue (as distinct from the issue of whether the federal government should have limited powers generally) as an inherently ideological one.
Click to expand...

By this I mean that constituencies that we might both associate with the domestic left don't actually care to be disarmed. Back when concealed carry was rarely legal, my criminal law professor (a former prosecutor and public defender) told girls to carry a pistol even though it isn't legal because that beats being raped or killed. If you have to live in a terrible part of town, your gun may be quite important to you.

I am not asserting a false equivalency, the idea that both ends of the spectrum are essentially the same, just that the desire to possess arms isn't itself particularly ideological.
 
Politicians of all stripe hate the Bill of Rights. But depending whether they lean left or right, they focus on just parts of it. Republicans in general are tolerant of the 2nd Amendment (because they know the Democrats will work that) and go after the 4th, 5th, 6th, and to a lesser extent the 1st Amendments. Democrats, the 2nd, 9th, 10th, and to a lesser extent the 1st Amendments (they know the Republicans will carry the water on the 4th and 5th)

Seven and 8 don't seem to be a very high priority that I've noticed. I'm waiting for one side or the other to take a stand against the 3rd Amendment. :rolleyes:

The ratchet really only turns one way, and that's towards less liberty.
 
We've seen large-scale mass noncompliance in numerous instances. The ATF has reported fewer than 500 bump-stocks turned in. "Assault rifle" registrations in Connecticut and New York are estimated at only 5-10% of the actual number possessed. Only about a dozen "high capacity" magazines were registered in New Jersey.

This mirrors the situations in Australia and the UK, in which compliance is well under 20%.

That's all well and good, of course, unless I'm the one who gets singled out. Just because my neighbors and friends are getting away with it doesn't mean I will. Maybe someone in the HOA has it in for me, or I have a vengeful spouse who decides to call the authorities.

Then what? I get arrested. If I resist in any way, or the SWAT team doesn't feel like taking chances, things get ugly. They'll brand me as a domestic terrorist on the news to "make an example." It's doubtful I can expect any leniency from the courts.

In the wake of things like the New York SAFE Act, the cry of "I won't comply" has become somewhat popular, and the lack of police action on the matter makes people dangerously complacent on stuff like this.
 
rickyrick said:
Brave, but people that don’t comply with gun laws end up in bad situations:
Prison
Fines
Probation
Loss of rights
Loss of employment
Possibly injured or killed by a government worker.

The public won’t be sympathetic to any right-wing activism
Click to expand...
A little more info..she was a former LEO and was talking about an AR ban..that she wouldn't surrender her ARs..NOT a LEO would not comply with any gun control laws as a LEO..as in enforcing them
The left leaning people on this committee would have little trouble finding a CURRENT LEO state that ARs and AKs are military weapons and should be banned..nothing new here..it's all just theater for the cameras.

..I'm sure there are LOTS of AR owners who wouldn't comply..BUT, last AR ban wasn't grandfathered. No reason to think the next(even if there WAS a 'next'..no way with the present makeup of congress or the POTUS) will be..BTEO says he'll be a-comin for yer AR and AK...yawn..so what..By Nov 2020, he'll be back in ElPaso watching the election resturns like a lot of us..but not as a candidate, like the rest of us.
 
Last edited:
I’m always doubtful about National bans for sure, they’re more difficult than state bans. But there is some history with the AWB.

I agree that Candidate Beto will not be around at the finish line.

I understand that the former officer is just that, a former officer. I would expect that I would receive punishment for violating a gun law, I’d expect that a former officer would be held to the same standard.

I refuse to allow lax enforcement to be my excuse for not complying to current and future laws.
 
We've seen large-scale mass noncompliance in numerous instances. The ATF has reported fewer than 500 bump-stocks turned in. "Assault rifle" registrations in Connecticut and New York are estimated at only 5-10% of the actual number possessed. Only about a dozen "high capacity" magazines were registered in New Jersey.
Click to expand...

Can that be a true estimate of compliance, do they have to be handed in if not then they could just be destroying them.
 
the media is the enemy of the people. if anyone tells you different, they're getting paid by the media to say so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top